Occasionally
today there are unsolicited forum postings about the WLO, but usually these degenerate into discussions about things
unrelated. It's a pity the administrators don't run a tighter ship.

The reader may prefer to skip this section
since we have not initiated or participated in any online forums since 2003. It's funny for us now to read what our policy had to be in those days:

"We
have been delighted by intelligent commentary that has arisen from material in the WLO site. Much of our content is controversial,
however, and certain problems have arisen. Debate is like a gunfight, speed is usually at the expense of accuracy. Serious
matters should be weighed calmly. One should never reply the same day. Problems exemplifying this kind of frantic rush-to-judgment
are as follows:

1. Laziness. We are more than happy to answer intelligent logical questions which might arise from a
careful reading of this volume. We will not, however, respond to questions which clearly reflect that the individual gave
the work only a cursory glance. Our time is too valuable to waste on private copy-and-paste tutorials.

2. The trigger-happy
practice of skipping ahead and reacting out-of-context. Often an idea is greatly qualified by the ideas which precede and
follow it. Sometimes the entire essence of what ties a book together will be found only in the preface or introduction.
A good example here is the reader so anxious to express himself that he will quickly skim the text for emotionally charged
keywords that he can object to. This way he can quickly express his philosophy without having to read or think. If the person
doesn't have sufficient time or energy to digest this material in it's entirety, then it shouldn't be read at all.

3. The mistake
of acting as though one statement is a microcosm of an entire work, defining every term and elucidating every principle in
one or two sentences. If this were possible, one book would summarize an entire library. This error leads to superfluous comment
resulting from the wrong assumption that specific points have not been covered elsewhere in the work.

4. The tendency
to ignore the actual words a person uses and react to some complex of ideas which the reader brings to the situation rather
than what the writer is actually saying. This will often involve the reader's simply ignoring words not understood. A collegiate
dictionary close at hand would be a good remedy here.

5. The problem
of not separating the important from the trivial. This results in petty and pedantic chit-chat. This, especially is helped
by first sleeping on the idea.

6. The cheap
shortcut of glib negative summary. There is unfortunately a certain element who feel justified in quickly reviewing books
they haven't read. This is easier of course, than creating something oneself. Our ideas are not intended for narrow individuals
who try to falsely enhance themselves by quickly dismissing that which challenges them. Those who have taken the time to write
something are seeking only specific substantive comment, because only this can lead to constructive upgrade of the material.

7. The use
of insult or slander. Sadly, the same anonymity which makes message boards such a wonderful arena for free expression also
provides a safe haven for unhappy people who like to be abusive. We always try to be genteel and will not read the posts of
anyone who is nasty. Insult is not equivalent to viable argument and always comes from people with untenable viewpoints which
they simply can't support (1).

Generally
speaking the kind of tedium that comes from all this intellectual slovenliness isn't worthy of reply. Serious people won't
squander their time on dilettantes."

Footnotes:

1. Heavy insult is mostly from aggressive dirty-mouth
boys of all ages, and usually involves remarks against a person's intelligence or family. Often there are elaborate anal or
excretory references. Three unpleasant
examples:~ Fundamentalist Christian responding to a discussion of evolution with reference to imagined necessity of his opponent
receiving "deep-muscle enema."~ Liberal Democrat responding to a discussion of Libertarianism with reference to sphincters
and the unlikely scenario of political philosophy emerging from the upper colon. This poor soul uses an online pseudonym
which mentions a prominent birth defect. It would be too great a coincidence, but a friend of ours from Florida told
us about a disfigured man who is known to spend a great deal of time insulting people online. We won't go into detail about
this poor man's deformity. It should suffice to say that his neighbors refer to him as "Old Turkey Neck."

~ The author was lucky enough to learn the identity
of one of these message board thugs and paid him a visit. An apology was politely requested, but the slander and vile language
was loudly escalated in the presence of a lady. When the tough talker tried to claw the author's face, self-defense and simple
chivalry dictated corrective action. The author introduced the attacker to a little known love-tap called the "East
Boston Fluffernutter" upon which the insulting individual became very mild and apologetic. The lady wanted to instruct our
dirty talker in "the art of passionate shoe kissing" but the author insistd that his apology was enough. The pen is mightier
than the sword, but sometimes ...